Contrary to what the incoming chairman of the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Independent Schools, David Boddy, says about single-sex education, thread here: http://www.ses-forums.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=786&start=0 single-sex education does not improve academic performance. It does, however, lead to an increase in gender stereotypical behaviour including more aggression and behavioural problems in boys and more gender-stereotyped girls (presumably more quiescent, which is the dominant stereotype).

No wonder the sexist SES like single sex education! It creates the conditions for what they seek to produce. However in other conditions, boys and girls turn out quite differently.

In a report published in the Science journal, researchers wrote: "Sex-segregated education is deeply misguided and often justified by weak, cherry-picked or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence.

"There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students' academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimises institutional sexism."

Boys who spend more time in each other's company are more likely to become aggressive and develop behavioural problems, while isolating girls can lead them to accept gender stereotypes, they said.

I'm aware that perhaps this should not be a new thread however after the first page of the other thread, the discussion got taken off-topic and I thought it important that this scientific study would be highlighted.

Hi Concerned Mum - the problem with putting the St. Vedast link back up front is that when you log in it is still the same old thread and you have to jump 40 posts to even see the last post. So be it, but wrong decision in my view, because it does not keep the Forum up to date . I recall that the debate about single sex schools has been around since I was a lass (in the real world) - but in the SES their clear preference is for the boy's school to dominate - it follows everything they stand for within their enclosed world. In the outside world parents struggle with a whole host of issues in deciding their childrens schooling (that's if they have any choice!). In the world that the SES aims at, it is private money now, and some outdated (old elite) view of education. SES still trying to roll back the hands of time - hence Jane Horrocks being conned into sending her son to Ashford. Plays to the deepest nature - boys first , girls second. Where is the Girls School in their promotion of the SES? Times Ed or not, the SES still stand for putting the law of the jungle (Manu?) first, and go against all progressive thinking. But easy to fall into their trap if you can afford it. My main beef is that if parents choose (maybe blindly) to send their kids to the SES Schools, they should not have public subsidy via the Charity Commission to do so, and at the same time be unchecked and unregulated in terms of their wider objectives, which is to be some sort of new religion ( with all that it entails, as we have discovered). kind regards, woodgreen.

ConcernedMum wrote:Contrary to what the incoming chairman of the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Independent Schools, David Boddy, says about single-sex education, thread here: http://www.ses-forums.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=786&start=0 single-sex education does not improve academic performance. It does, however, lead to an increase in gender stereotypical behaviour including more aggression and behavioural problems in boys and more gender-stereotyped girls (presumably more quiescent, which is the dominant stereotype).

No wonder the sexist SES like single sex education! It creates the conditions for what they seek to produce. However in other conditions, boys and girls turn out quite differently.

In a report published in the Science journal, researchers wrote: "Sex-segregated education is deeply misguided and often justified by weak, cherry-picked or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence.

"There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students' academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimises institutional sexism."

Boys who spend more time in each other's company are more likely to become aggressive and develop behavioural problems, while isolating girls can lead them to accept gender stereotypes, they said.

I'm aware that perhaps this should not be a new thread however after the first page of the other thread, the discussion got taken off-topic and I thought it important that this scientific study would be highlighted.

Have you read the Science magazine report as well as the primary research that feeds to report? Although I have only read the Science article and take issue with the logic and some of the arguments presented. This is not to suggest that they are wrong, but it comes across as a politcal agenda rather than trying to define reality.

Yes, I have read the Science article. It is written from a policy advisory perspective. Evidence-based policy is a good idea I think.

The Telegraph article gives a very good summary of the Science piece.

I see the Science article also nails as "pseudoscience" the claim that boys and girls have different learning styles (differing learning styles being one of the reasons Mr Boddy is quoted as giving in the TES article, for St. James being single sex).

Maybe boys and girls should have both sex teaching (properly, not nasty) for boys and girls together to begin with, and then for girls, and also then for boys, so that they might wish to discuss or ask something they would not feel OK to ask if there were male/female there and they feel not to let boys/girls hear what they want to say or ask...